Memeorandum

November 08, 2007

Getting Closer...

We are watching the Times take it one day at a time as they stride towards an embrace of reality. Yesterday, this was the Times headline covering the electoral impact of the Spitzer plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

New York Democrats Say License Issue Had Little Effect

It was only down in the third paragraph that the Times explained that the plan had little impact because Democrats ran away from it.

“It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a
first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to
defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with
it at this point.”

Or this:

Nita M. Lowey,
a longtime incumbent from Westchester who is among the most influential
members of New York’s delegation, warned that now was not the time to
take up the issue.

Ms. Lowey said Mr. Spitzer’s “proposal raises serious questions that must first be addressed through comprehensive immigration reform at a national level,” according to a statement released by her aides.

Here's another "wary" Dem:

Representative John Hall, a Democratic freshman lawmaker whose
district includes New York City’s northern suburbs, said he was worried
that illegal immigrants who are able to secure licenses in New York
under Mr. Spitzer would in turn use those licenses to obtain other
forms of identification and other documents.

“I think it creates more problems than it tries to solve,” he said. “I would urge the governor to withdraw the plan.”

And another:

Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a first-term Democrat whose
district is in the Albany region, said she phoned the governor’s office
a day after he proposed the initiative to say that she would not
support it.

Ms. Gillibrand said the proposal was extremely
unpopular in her district. “I’ve heard this nonstop for the last five
weeks,” she said. There should be a national standard for licenses, she
said, rather than allowing states to go in different directions. “I
don’t think it should be implemented,” she said of Mr. Spitzer’s
policy. “It’s not a good idea.”

There's nothing I dislike more than conflation. So I would never try and link up illegal immigration and global warming, would I?

Well, even if I wouldn't Iain Murray on the Corner draws the logical conclusion the Global Warming alarmists aren't willing or able to see…they should be immigration restrictionists of the first order.

First, he notes what is necessary for the U.S. to reach the emissions targets the alarmists claim are necessary to save the world:

Moroever, barring some miracle technology that will make zero-emitting energy as affordable as fossil fuels, if we're going to reduce U.S. emissions by 70% by 2060, as most of the current slew of bills before Congress aspire to, we're only going to be able to match the standard of living we would have with fossil fuels by a massive reduction in U.S. population - to about 170 million.

EH, forget it, let me just try to get to the punchline. The point was, global warming alarmists have proposed policies that would dictate a necessary population decline. Cutting out illegal immigrants would be a great source for that decline. So Global Warming Alarmists should be the biggest Immigration Restrictionists.

And that brings to mind a very interesting mental picture.

With apologies to Richard Clarke for the slight editing of this passage from his book:
(emphasis added to indicate where the edits have been made)

..."extraordinary renditions", were operations to apprehend illegal immigrants along border towns, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of local law enforcement... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 2009, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated illegal immigrants' civil rights. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just come in from a watch tower along the border. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of his civil rights, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a carbon emitter. Go grab his ass."

Have any enterprising Dems yet defended denying licenses to illegals as an effort to increase public transport usage? Or is driving an essential part of the immigrant experience, and the natives should take the bus?

You don't even have to go that far. Just look at the per capita carbon footprint of a Mexican / third worlder vs. an American. Every migrant puts that much more of a burden on Gaia. After all, if you're going to make most of the world remain a technologically benighted sink of misery to hold down on carbon emissions, it's not very bright to let people escape just so they can rape Gaia here.

A map obtained by The Associated Press shows that the double- or triple-layer fence may be built as much as two miles from the river on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, leaving parts of Granjeno and other nearby communities in a potential no-man's-land between the barrier and the water's edge.

Based on the map and what the residents have been told, the fence could run straight through houses and backyards. Some fear it could also cut farmers off from prime farmland close to the water.

Well. I suppose Kaus will have a much better take on this than I could.

Once passports are required on every border crossing, and a carte d'identitee is required to vote, then, sure, it is a state's issue. Allowing illegals to vote is against the US constitution, which holds sway. But creating a system with enforceable rules to regulate immigration from Mexico is apparently racism beyond the pale of civilized nations.

"John Harwood's story in the Wall Street Journal is headlined "Poll Suggests Clinton Is Vulnerable." The key finding is that although adults want a Democratic president rather than a Republican president by a margin of 50 to 35 percent, they favor Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by a statistically insignificant 46 to 45 percent. Clinton's lead over Giuliani is down from her previous leads in NBC/Wall Street Journal polls of 49 to 42 percent in September, 47 to 41 percent in July, and 48 to 43 percent in June.

"This improvement in Giuliani's standing versus Clinton's is reflected by a similar improvement in some, but not all, other polls recently: Rasmussen, ABC/Washington Post, Fox News. Why does Clinton run so far behind the Democratic vote?

"While a 51 percent majority gives her high marks for being "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency," pluralities rate her negatively on honesty, likability, and sharing their positions on the issues.

"In a general election, the poll suggests that Clinton has the least potential for winning votes from Republicans — 84% say they definitely would not vote for her, compared with six in 10 for either Obama or Edwards. Independents show the least resistance to Obama and the most to Edwards.

"The poll found that 36% of women wouldn't vote for Clinton, compared with 50% of men — and 55% of married men. Obama had comparable appeal to women and more to men. Clinton's appeal overall falls as income rises, the reverse of the findings for Obama."

Hit - so if the border fence is built at the border, the river could (maybe possibly) change course, and the land between the fence and the river would be American-controlled.

The solution is to build the fence inland, immediately creating land between the fence and the river, which border residents describe as "giving Mexico the river and everything that's behind that wall."

adults want a Democratic president rather than a Republican president by a margin of 50 to 35 percent - people chronologically old enough to vote, maybe; 'adults', by definition, no.

While I am concerned about the driver's license issue in NY I am even more concerned about the ID which can be issued by the DMV if you don't have a driver's license. About all you have to do to get one of those is flash a birth certificate at the DMV clerk and you get one. In NJ you get a boat driver's license the same way and for the same purpose. Once you have that you are open to all kinds of other ID's that only ask that you show them a photo ID to qualify.

While I am concerned about the driver's license issue in NY I am even more concerned about the ID which can be issued by the DMV if you don't have a driver's license. About all you have to do to get one of those is flash a birth certificate at the DMV clerk and you get one. In NJ you get a boat driver's license the same way and for the same purpose. Once you have that you are open to all kinds of other ID's that only ask that you show them a photo ID to qualify.

While I am concerned about the driver's license issue in NY I am even more concerned about the ID which can be issued by the DMV if you don't have a driver's license. About all you have to do to get one of those is flash a birth certificate at the DMV clerk and you get one. In NJ you get a boat driver's license the same way and for the same purpose. Once you have that you are open to all kinds of other ID's that only ask that you show them a photo ID to qualify.

The poll found that 36% of women wouldn't vote for Clinton, compared with 50% of men — and 55% of married men.

Rush was highlighting the married men figure today. He said they probably dislike her because she reminds them of their first wife.

Speaking of married men, I wish they could factor Bill into these polls somehow. How many voters think negatively of Hillary, but don't really mind much, because their beloved Bill will be around to keep her on the straight and narrow?

"BIGOT" was a codeword for Operation Overlord, defining ultra top-secret clearance required to know details of the landing plans. Those with this knowledge were called "BIGOTed".
Wikipedia. It also means people who don't allow open comments. e.g. Wikipedia is an example of bigots fighting over deleting other people's comments.

Terror warning: Larry's new list of pals. The article mentions 2yrs(SC) and five years(IIPA) alot.

I've never understood how the Democrats have managed to avoid taking any responsibility for the immigration issue in the last few years. It is a weird combination of Big Media complicity and the liberal-Left's unchallenged incoherence, but they are only now facing the music. Incredible. Let's find out how deep the isolationist strain runs in the party, shall we? Let's have some damned accountability for once from these people! At least Bush has a position (even if I don't like it); the Democrats have been riding on that free pass forever. Ya basta!

The same goes for the Dem's success at side-stepping their party's racist history in the South. The media always plays front-guard for them on it.

And, more recently, recall the anti-Bush Katrina "reportage." It seemed to be engineered to first, obfuscate Louisiana's Democrat-party corruption and incompetence in the face of a predicted storm, while it, second, ratcheted all blame upwards, towards Federal offices and, ultimately, the nation's executive branch.

The good news is, as Louisiana's recent elections reveal, political media gambits only work for a short time, and they work only on the national, macro level. In New Orleans and the surrounding counties, the local, on-the-ground voters could see thru the media smokescreen, and only the Nation's beltway (both media and politicians) got snookered by the ruse.

This is analogous, too, to the front-guard-media's Iraq narrative. To the in-the-street Baghadadi watching MSNBC's or CNN's skewed political coverage regarding his new country, the media's smokescreen is obviously partisan and false.

From Joe Wilson's NYT editorial to the LAT's recent poll-analysis on the psychology of "conservatives," I am no longer amazed at the way that the anti-Republican beltway-machine laps their media's junk up. I've resigned myself to it.

But, whether this makes the Democrats in Congress simple fools, outright liars, or junk-news addicts, I don't care. Either way, their appetite for this junk ought to buy them some time in a pink, padded room.

While I agree with your assessment re media, I don't nelieve that anyone need be resigned to it. Cancel a subscription, excercise great care in using the TV, read a book rather than go to a movie and urge others to do likewise. Schumpeter's great engine of "creative destruction" will handle the heavy lifting.

When I first made that suggestion on another forum some four years ago, NYT stock was at $50 - it's now at $18.

Now, I didn't "cause" it to drop - Junior owns that one - but I sure wasn't alone in making the decision that my life would be better in many respects if I acted rather than accepted.

There are some very clever (but quite stupid) people manipulating the "news" and politics. It is great fun to continue to trip them whenever possible.

Yup, Rick. I agree, but only in so far as the subject media org is accountable to market forces...

...and not just the personal play-toy of a gabillionaire looking for alternative methods of "donating" to his partisan patrons. The hyper-wealthy Sulzberger clan can continue to subsidize their lagging NYT brand well into the next millenium. All free of adversarial board-oversight or revocable government subsidy.

Also, just as a writer will crumple-up and toss an old draft, it is not inconceivable that Sulzberger has decided to run the NYT brand into the ground in aid of the Democrat(ic) party's goals, all in anticipation of launching a modernized, re-branded, new-media organization after the new-media market sorts itself out.

Could be he's just waiting for competing online-media models to distinguish themselves first. And if Hillary wins while the brand arcs towards the trash-can, then all the better!

Junior had a good run during the Bubba Bubble but he shows absolutely zero acumen wrt business. Pumping stale product through a "new" pipeline doesn't freshen it.

I've been thinking (to the extent that's possible) about Boris and Cathy's comments about memory and perception and the influence of both on "reality". I keep wondering if the expectation that online-media models are going to coalesce into a "winning" paradigm isn't misplaced. I keep expecting a GM to emerge from the Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and Oldsmobile lines available but that just might not occur at all.

Rich pointed to The Skeptical Optimist the other day and it's been a pleasure to read through a bit of his archive and contrast it with the standard AP garbage which contains so much political hackery that the content is close to valueless.

To me the Skeptical Optimist model has a very high vlaue while the AP model has the value of whatever someone will pay for drivel - yet AP "makes" money while the Skeptical Optimist is working for a nonmonetary reward.

It's a puzzling moment wrt the value of information in contrast to its price.